R. v. Kassam, 2016 ONSC 6961

CITATION: R. v. Kassam, 2016 ONSC 6961

COURT FILE NO.: 15-6476

DATE: 20161109

CORRIGENDA: 20161116

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

INAYAT AL-NASHIR KASSAM

Defendant

COUNSEL:

Paul Attia for the Crown

Inayat Kassam in person

Sharon Greene for the Law Society of Upper Canada

Alexandra Ciobotaru for York Region Police Service and Ian Mason

Dennis Yang in person

HEARD: October 11, 2016

ruling on third party records application

boswell j.

THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

[1] Mr. Kassam is going to trial in a month on a six count indictment. All counts are fraud-related. It is alleged that he held himself out as a lawyer, when he is not a lawyer, and collected payments from clients for legal services. It is further alleged that he misappropriated the sum of $6,000 from a former employer, Adam Seif, by forging a cheque and depositing it into his own account. Moreover, that he forged Adam Seif’s signature on a power of attorney and then used that power of attorney to defraud Honda Canada Finance. Finally, he is alleged to have fraudulently used a Notary Public seal.

[2] Mr. Kassam has elected to represent himself in these proceedings. He is not satisfied with the disclosure he has received from the Crown and applies for a wide-ranging order compelling the Crown and various third parties to produce additional documentation to him.

THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT

[3] Mr. Kassam seeks a broad range of documents. His application was framed as a Third Party Records application, but it became apparent almost immediately during oral argument that he was seeking further disclosure from the Crown as well as from third parties.

[4] From the Crown, he seeks:

(a) A copy of any statement made by Mr. Kassam, whether written or oral, in the possession of the Crown;

(b) A list of witnesses whom the Crown intends to call;

(c) The criminal records of any witness intended to be called by the Crown;

(d) Witness statements from anyone interviewed by the police during their investigation of Mr. Kassam;

(e) Complete client files of nine named individuals who have provided statements to the police, namely Wisam Yosuef, Cheryl Parrish, Harry Leung, Elayathamb Balachandran, Tommy Kyriakopoulos, Ali Jiwan, Karim Dharani, Sharda “Sam” Mulani and Martha Menza:

(f) A copy of the criminal record of Mr. Rahim Mavji. I note that Mr. Mavji was a co-accused who apparently has entered a guilty plea to a fraud-related offence, though I am not clear on the particulars of his plea;

(g) A copy of any statement given to the police by Mr. Mavji;

(h) Statements of witnesses interviewed by the police in their investigation of Mr. Mavji, should there have been interviews conducted separate from the investigation of Mr. Kassam;

(i) Copies of all emails sent and received by Mr. Kassam between October 1, 2013 and February 4, 2014 using the email address jay@blackstonelaw.ca;

(j) Copies of all emails sent and received by Mr. Kassam between September 1, 2012 and September 15, 2013 using the email address kassam@seiflawfirm.com;

(k) Copies of all invoices from IRF International which were paid by Seif Law Professional Corporation for the period September 1, 2012 to September 15, 2013; and,

Copies of all entries made in the PCLaw accounting software from Seif Law Professional Corporation for the period of May 2013 to September 15, 2013.

[5] From Seif Law Professional Corporation and/or Adam Seif he seeks:

(a) Their complete investigative file pertaining to their internal investigation into the alleged fraud by Mr. Kassam regarding a $6,000 trust cheque purportedly deposited into Mr. Kassam’s bank account, including but not limited to the following:

(i) All notes, memoranda, emails, correspondence and reports received or sent by Adam Seif or any staff member of Seif Law Professional Corporation regarding the investigation;

(ii) All emails and other communications between Adam Seif and the clients brought into the firm by Mr. Kassam;

(iii) All emails sent or received by Mr. Kassam in relation to the clients through the email account kassam@seiflawfirm.com;

(iv) Copies of all invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Seif Law Professional Corporation;

(v) Copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Seif Law Professional Corporation;

(vi) A copy of the trust account ledger from PCLaw for all clients brought into the Seif law firm by Mr. Kassam;

(vii) The complete client files for all clients brought into the firm by Mr. Kassam;

(viii) A complete copy of the real estate file of Mr. Kassam’s spouse, Farzana Kassam;

(ix) Copies of entry and exit data records for the premises, 10288 Yonge Street, Unit 2, Richmond Hill, Ontario from the alarm company used by Seif Law Professional Corporation;

(x) The travel history for Adam Seif for the period September 2012 to February 4, 2014; and

(xi) A copy of all emails sent by Adam Seif to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Seif law firm by Mr. Kassam.

[6] From Blackstone Law Professional Corporation and/or Adam Siddiqi he seeks:

(a) Their complete investigative file pertaining to their internal investigation into the alleged fraud by Mr. Kassam, whereby he is purported to have held himself out as a lawyer, including but not limited to the following:

(i) All emails sent or received by Mr. Kassam in relation to the firm’s clients through the email account jay@blackstonelaw.ca;

(ii) Copies of all invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Blackstone Law Professional Corporation;

(iii) Copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Blackstone Law Professional Corporation;

(iv) The complete client files for all clients brought into the firm by Mr. Kassam;

(v) A complete copy of the real estate file of Mr. Kassam’s spouse, Farzana Kassam in relation to the discharge of a second mortgage;

(vi) A copy of all emails sent by Aali Siddiqi to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Blackstone law firm by Mr. Kassam;

(vii) All emails, letters or any other communications between Aali Siddiqi and the Law Society of Upper Canada relevant to any investigations, pending or complete against Blackstone Law Professional Corporation and/or Aali Siddiqi; and,

(viii) Any sanctions or settlements entered into by Blackstone Law Professional Corporation with any third parties or clients as a result of the allegations against Mr. Kassam.

[7] From Sunmark Law Professional Corporation and/or Don-Han Yang, a.k.a. Dennis Yang he seeks:

(a) Their complete investigative file pertaining to their internal investigation into the alleged fraud by Mr. Kassam, whereby he is purported to have held himself out as a lawyer, including but not limited to the following:

(i) All emails sent or received by Mr. Kassam in relation to the firm’s clients through the email account assigned to him while employed by Sunmark Law Professional Corporation;

(ii) Copies of all emails sent or received by Rahim Mavji while Mr. Mavji was employed by Sunmark Law Professional Corporation;

(iii) Copies of all invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Sunmark Law Professional Corporation;

(iv) Copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Sunmark Law Professional Corporation;

(v) The complete client files for all clients brought into the firm by Mr. Kassam;

(vi) A copy of all emails sent by Don-Han Yang to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Sunmark law firm by Mr. Kassam; and

(vii) All emails, letters or any other communications between Don-Han Yang and the Law Society of Upper Canada relevant to any investigations, pending or complete against Sunmark Law Professional Corporation and/or Don-Han Yang.

[8] From York Region Police Service Detective Constable Ian Mason he seeks:

(a) The complete investigative file of York Region Police Service pertaining to its investigation into the fraud and subsequent plea of guilt by Rahim Mavji regarding the fraud committed by Rahim Mavji and Mr. Mavji’s co-operation with York Region Police Service regarding the same subject matter, including, but not limited to:

(i) All notes, memoranda, emails, correspondence and reports received or sent by Detective Ian Mason or any staff member of York Region Police Service regarding the investigation; and,

(ii) All emails and other communications between Detective Ian Mason and the clients brought into the firm by the Applicant with respect to Rahim Mavji.

[9] From the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”):

(a) The complete investigative/disciplinary file, if any, of Seif Law Professional Corporation and/or Adam Seif and Aali Siddiqi and/or Blackstone Law Professional Corporation pertaining to any investigations, complaints and/or lawsuits by clients or any other members of the public, as well as its co-operation with the York Region Police Service regarding the same subject matter, including, but not limited to:

(i) All notes, memoranda, emails, correspondence and reports received or sent in relation to the investigation and/or complaints.

[10] There were additional records initially sought from the Office of the Independent Police Review Director. This request was withdrawn when it became apparent that the said office had no relevant documents.

THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD

[11] The evidentiary record in support of this application is, to say the least, limited.

[12] In support of the application, Mr. Kassam filed an 80 paragraph affidavit. Very little of it pertains to disclosure-related issues. Mr. Kassam previously brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(2) of the Charter, based on an alleged infringement of his 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time. The application was dismissed by Bird J. on June 16, 2016. The affidavit filed in support of the disclosure application is, by and large, the same as the affidavit filed in support of the 11(b) application. It refers at length to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kassam’s arrest and subsequent bail hearing. It then reviews the history of the proceedings to date and details the prejudice Mr. Kassam has suffered while the charges have been outstanding. It appears that Mr. Kassam repurposed that affidavit by adding several paragraphs to the end of it and refiling it as part of the disclosure application.

[13] I counted just nine paragraphs in the affidavit that address the issue of disclosure. Mr. Kassam deposed that he requested disclosure from the Crown by letter dated August 25, 2015. He said he received an email from the Crown dated September 11, 2015 indicating that additional disclosure was available for him to pick up. When he went to pick it up, however, it became apparent to him that the disclosure was not in relation to his case, but someone else’s. He acknowledged that further disclosure was provided by the Crown by email on September 19, 2015.

[14] At paras. 74 - 78 of his affidavit Mr. Kassam deposed as follows:

74. I tremendously need the production of several documents from Adam Seif and/or Seif Law Professional Corporation, Aali Siddiqi and/or Blackstone Law Professional Corporation, Don-Han Yang and/or Sunmark Law Professional Corporation, York Region Police Detective Ian Mason and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director in order to be able to make a full answer defence.

75. I don’t know the procedure that is involved in a criminal trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

76. The production of the documents as outlined in my Notice of Application are extremely necessary, relevant and important as they will show that the allegations against me are impossible to have occurred and that if there was any crime committed, it would be by Adam Seif and/or Seif Law Professional Corporation and not myself.

77. In terms of the relevance, Adam Seif and/or Seif Law Professional Corporation, Aali Siddiqi and/or Blackstone Law Professional Corporation, Don-Han Yang and/or Sunmark Law Professional Corporation all claimed during the preliminary inquiry that they were unaware of a lot of the clients who had retained their respective law firms, and it is essential to be able to get copies of all the entries made into the PC Law program for each law firm as well as copies of all payments ever made to me or IRF International Inc., together with the invoices issued by IRF International Inc. This information will be relevant as it will clearly disclose that the information of every client was entered into PC Law program and payments were issued to myself for the commission on these client files.

78. It is also relevant and important to be able to get access/copies of all the emails ever sent from the email account assigned to myself while working with each law firm as it will clearly demonstrate that at no point in time did I ever state that I was a lawyer to any party. In fact, it will clearly state to the contrary.

[15] Distinctly absent from any of the materials filed by any of the parties to this application is a clear synopsis of the allegations against Mr. Kassam. The Crown assigned to this trial was not available to argue Mr. Kassam’s applications due to another ongoing trial. Another Crown was assigned the applications at the 11^th hour and did not have a fulsome understanding of the substance of the allegations against Mr. Kassam. I am left with only a vague appreciation of the allegations.

[16] In particular, I understand that Mr. Kassam was, or may have been, connected with three law firms between September 2012 and February 2014, specifically Seif Law Professional Corporation, Sundmark Law Professional Corporation and Blackstone Law Professional Corporation. The connection is not entirely clear to me, but according to Mr. Kassam’s Notice of Application, he was engaged as an executive director of business development and operations.

[17] Allegedly, while in the employ of one or more of the named law firms, Mr. Kassam held himself out to members of the public as a lawyer and took payments from clients on that basis. I have no details, however, in terms of any such allegations.

[18] While employed by Mr. Adam Seif, Mr. Kassam is alleged to have forged a trust account cheque in the amount of $6,000 and to have deposited that cheque into his own account. He is also alleged to have forged Mr. Seif’s signature on a power of attorney which he then purportedly used to lease one or more vehicles from Honda Canada Finance.

[19] I have no details in relation to the alleged fraudulent use of a notary public seal.

[20] The officer in charge, Ian Mason, and the York Region Police Service were represented by counsel at the hearing of the application. Counsel offered to produce Detective Constable Mason for cross-examination by Mr. Kassam. Mr. Kassam took up the offer and conducted a brief cross-examination, the outcome of which I will refer to below.

[21] With these general observations about the frailties of the evidentiary record, I will move on to an examination of the legal principles applicable to both first party and third party disclosure applications.

FIRST PARTY (CROWN) DISCLOSURE

[22] The basic principles surrounding the Crown’s disclosure obligations are well established. The leading case remains R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, 68 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (“Stinchcombe”) though subsequent cases have refined, and continue to refine, the disclosure rights of an accused person. Certain principles are clear and they include:

(a) A defendant’s right to disclosure is a principle of fundamental justice and a component of the constitutional right to make full answer and defence: see R. v. Girimonte, (1997), 1997 CanLII 1866 (ON CA), 205 O.A.C. 337, 121 C.C.C. (3d) 33 (Ont. C.A.);

(b) The Crown’s disclosure obligations are designed to meet the defendant’s constitutional entitlement to know the case s/he has to meet and to make full answer and defence to the offence charged. The obligations extend to exculpatory as well as inculpatory materials: see R. v.Bottineau, 2005 CanLII 63780 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 4034, at para. 31;

(c) In response to a request from the defence, the Crown is required to disclose all relevant material in its possession or control. It matters not whether the Crown intends to call the evidence at trial, nor whether the material even constitutes evidence that would be admissible at a trial: R. v.Bottineau, as above;

(d) All relevant information is to be disclosed. One measure of relevance is the usefulness of the information to the defence: see R. v. Egger (1993), 1993 CanLII 98 (SCC), 82 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.);

(e) Information ought not to be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that the withholding of the information will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence: Stinchcombe, at para. 22;

(f) The Crown’s obligation to disclose is not absolute. It is subject to a discretion regarding relevance and privilege. In particular, the Crown’s obligation does not extend to evidence that is beyond the control of the Crown, clearly irrelevant or subject to privilege: Stinchcombe, at para. 20;

(g) The Crown’s discretion is reviewable by the trial judge. Counsel for the defence can initiate such a review where disputes arise. On review, the onus is on the Crown to justify its refusal to disclose: Stinchcombe, at para. 21;

(h) All statements obtained from persons who have provided relevant information to the authorities should be produced. If there are no written statements, or notes relating to the statement, then in addition to the name, address and occupation of the witness, all information in the possession of the Crown relating to any evidence that witness could give should be supplied, including a Will Say statement summarizing the anticipated evidence of the witness: Stinchcombe, at para. 33.

THIRD PARTY DISCLOSURE

[23] The production of records in the hands of third parties engages somewhat different issues than the production of first party records. With third party records, competing rights are engaged and must be balanced. On the one hand is the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. On the other are the rights of those individuals who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records sought not to be deprived of those privacy expectations except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

[24] The Supreme Court established a process for assessing third party records applications in R. v. O’Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411. The process was refined somewhat in the more recent case of R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, but the essential elements of the O’Connor process remain intact to this day. In McNeil, Justice Charron summarized the O’Connor procedure, in para. 27, as follows:

(1) The accused first obtains a subpoena duces tecum and serves it on the third party record holder;

(2) The accused also brings an application, supported by appropriate affidavit evidence, showing that the records sought are likely relevant in his or her trial;

(3) If production is unopposed, there is no need for a hearing;

(4) If the record holder, or some other interested person, advances a well-founded claim that the records are privileged, in all but the rarest of cases involving innocence at stake, the existence of privilege will effectively bar the application; and,

(5) Where privilege is not an issue the judge determines production in a two stage process. First, the judge must be satisfied that the records are likely relevant. If so, he or she will order production to the court for review. Second, after reviewing the records for relevance, and considering the salutary and deleterious effects of production, the court will determine whether production should be made in whole or in part.

[25] While the burden on the applicant to establish “likely relevance” has been referred to as “significant” (O’Connor, para. 24), it is not an onerous one. The court, at the initial stage of the inquiry, “plays a meaningful role in screening applications to prevent the defence from engaging in speculative, fanciful, disruptive, unmeritorious, obstructive and time-consuming requests for production”. (McNeil, para. 29).

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[26] Mr. Kassam’s position is relatively straightforward. He argued that the disclosure sought – both first party and third party – is required to enable him to make full answer and defence. He frankly did not go much farther than that general assertion in his submissions. He was somewhat thorough in his description of what he wanted, but lacked detail in terms of providing the requisite “likely relevant” nexus between the records sought and the triable issues in this case.

[27] The Crown’s position is that all relevant disclosure has been made, save for the production of client files that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and which the Crown has elected not to review or produce for that reason.

[28] The LSUC opposed production of any part of their files. They argued first that they were not properly served with a subpoena duces tecum. Second, that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis upon which to make a disclosure order – in other words, that Mr. Kassam has failed to meet the likely relevant threshold with respect to their files. Third, that their files are rife with materials protected by solicitor-client privilege and that Mr. Kassam has failed to establish any justification for intruding on that privilege. Finally, they cited s. 49.12 of the Law Society Act, which they say prohibits the disclosure of their records.

[29] York Region Police Service also opposed the application, arguing that they did not even receive a complete application record. They submitted, in any event, that the investigating officers have provided all of the fruits of their investigation to the Crown for disclosure purposes. Having said that, and as I mentioned, DC Mason testified during the hearing of this application. During his testimony he undertook to conduct some additional investigation at the request of Mr. Kassam. I will come to that shortly.

[30] Mr. Yang attended the hearing of the application but did not make submissions to the court. He filed a flash drive containing the records sought by Mr. Kassam and he submitted his rights to the court for determination.

APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

[31] I intend to review and analyse the disclosure requests in the order I set them out above.

First Party Disclosure

[32] My conclusions with respect to the disclosure sought from the Crown are as follows:

(a) Obviously, copies of any statements made by Mr. Kassam, whether written or oral, in the possession of the Crown must be disclosed. That said, I have no evidence on which to conclude that any such statements have not been provided;

(b) The Crown shall, at least 10 days prior to trial, provide Mr. Kassam with a list of any witnesses it intends to call and the order in which they are intended to be called;

(c) DC Mason undertook to obtain and provide to Mr. Kassam (or to the Crown for disclosure to Mr. Kassam) CPIC reports detailing the criminal records of any witness intended to be called by the Crown and that should be done at least 10 days before trial;

(d) I am satisfied that any relevant witness statements have been disclosed;

(e) Mr. Kassam sought the complete client files of nine named individuals. The Crown asserts that solicitor-client privilege attaches to these files. I agree. Mr. Kassam argued that he was an agent of the engaged solicitors and as such ought to have unfettered access to the files. I do not agree. He is not, nor has he ever been a solicitor. He has advanced no persuasive argument either that the contents of the file are likely relevant to a live issue, or that solicitor-client privilege ought to be pierced. No production is ordered. I do note, for the record, the Crown’s advice that these files do not form part of the case to meet by the accused;

(f) DC Mason also undertook to obtain and provide a copy of the criminal record of Mr. Rahim Mavji and that should be done at least 10 days prior to trial;

(g) I am advised by the Crown that a copy of any statement given to the police by Mr. Mavji has already been provided and rely on that advice in not making any further production order;

(h) DC Mason testified that no witnesses were interviewed in relation to the investigation of Mr. Mavji separate from the investigation of Mr. Kassam. All witness statements have been produced;

(i) The Crown is not in possession of any of the emails sent or received by Mr. Kassam using the email address jay@blackstonelaw.ca. DC Mason testified that he attempted to obtain the emails but was advised that the account was discontinued and the emails are not available;

(j) Similarly the Crown is not in possession of any of the emails sent or received by Mr. Kassam using the email address kassam@seiflawfirm.com. Again, DC Mason testified that he attempted to obtain those emails, but they no longer exist and the account was discontinued;

(k) The Crown advises that it does not have copies of Mr. Seif’s business records and Mr. Seif has taken the position that he will not produce those records absent a court order to do so.

Third Party Disclosure

From Mr. Seif/Seif Law

[33] My conclusions with respect to the records sought from Mr. Seif are as follows:

(a) Any communications between Mr. Seif and the Crown regarding the investigation into Mr. Kassam should be produced by the Crown as first party disclosure;

(b) Communications between Mr. Seif and any of his clients are prima facie the subject of solicitor-client privilege. This privilege extends to the materials in the clients’ files, as well as any PC Law entries relevant to the clients. Mr. Kassam has presented no compelling reason to pierce that privilege in this case;

(c) I am satisfied that there is likely relevance to the invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Seif Law Professional Corporation as well as copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices rendered to Seif Law Professional Corporation. These records, which presumably were in Mr. Kassam’s possession at some prior point in time, will assist in establishing the nature of the relationship between Mr. Kassam and Mr. Seif. I am further satisfied that there is no compelling privacy reason not to disclose these documents, since they would have been exchanged between Mr. Seif and Mr. Kassam at an earlier date in any event. This conclusion obviates the need for any further review process. These records should be produced forthwith by Mr. Seif;

(d) Mr. Kassam has not persuaded me that there is any likely relevance to any of the following records: the real estate file of his spouse, Farzana Kassam; entry and exit data records for 10288 Yonge Street, Unit 2, Richmond Hill; and the travel history for Adam Seif for the period September 2012 to February 4, 2014;

(e) On the other hand, I am satisfied that there is likely relevance to emails sent by Adam Seif to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Seif Law firm by Mr. Kassam. Again, these emails may help establish the contours of the business relationship. I am not certain whether any of these emails will include privileged information. For that reason, Mr. Seif shall deliver a complete record of such emails to the court for review and disposition. They should be provided to the court in Newmarket, by delivery to my administrative assistant, Diane Massey, on or before November 21, 2016.

From Mr. Siddiqi/Blackstone Law

[34] My conclusions with respect to the disclosure sought from Aali Siddiqi/Blackstone Law are:

(a) For the reasons set out at para. 31(c) above, I am satisfied that there is likely relevance to copies of all invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Blackstone Law Professional Corporation, as well as copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Blackstone Law Professional Corporation. Further, there is no privacy interest in these documents any longer since they have been exchanged back and forth between Mr. Kassam and Blackstone Law. They must be produced by Mr. Siddiqi forthwith;

(b) Also for the reasons set out above, Mr. Siddiqi’s client files are prima facie subject to solicitor-client privilege for all clients brought into the firm by Mr. Kassam. No compelling reason has been presented to intrude upon the privilege;

(c) No likely relevance has been established with respect to the real estate file of Mr. Kassam’s spouse, Farzana Kassam in relation to the discharge of a second mortgage;

(d) I am not satisfied that there is likely relevance to emails sent by Aali Siddiqi to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Blackstone Law firm by Mr. Kassam. I appreciate that this is a different conclusion than the one I just reached with respect to the emails between Mr. Kassam and Mr. Seif. I will explain why. Mr. Kassam is charged with defrauding Mr. Seif directly. An issue may well develop at trial regarding the limits of Mr. Kassam’s authority to make deposits and write cheques at the Seif law firm. Emails exchanged between them regarding client files may have some relevance to that issue and I am satisfied that the court should review them for that purpose. Mr. Kassam is not charged with defrauding Mr. Siddiqi. Rather, the allegation is that Mr. Kassam held himself out to Blackstone Law clients as being a lawyer. I have not been persuaded that anything in the content of any emails between Mr. Kassam and Mr. Siddiqi is likely relevant to whether he held himself out as a lawyer to the public; and,

(e) Communications with the LSUC I will address below.

From Don-Han Yang/Sunmark Law

[35] My conclusions with respect to the Sunmark Law records are:

(a) I have not been persuaded of the likely relevance of any emails sent or received by Rahim Mavji while Mr. Mavji was employed by Sunmark Law Professional Corporation;

(b) I am satisfied, again for the reasons set out above, that there should be production of copies of all invoices sent by I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam to Sunmark Law Professional Corporation, together with copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Sunmark Law Professional Corporation. Mr. Yang filed a flash drive with all the files requested on it. In light of my ruling that these documents are to be produced, I order that Mr. Yang produce them forthwith. This will obviate the need for the court to (1) attempt to locate the documents on the flash drive; and (2) view irrelevant and possibly privileged records included on the flash drive that have otherwise not been ordered produced;

(c) I am again not satisfied that there is a basis upon which to intrude on the solicitor-client privilege of any of Mr. Yang’s clients; and,

(d) I will again address communications with the LSUC below.

From York Region Police Service/DC Ian Mason

[36] I am not persuaded that any relevant parts of the investigative file have not been produced. Subject to the additional investigation that DC Mason has undertaken to complete, there will be no further disclosure order against York Region Police Service.

From the Law Society of Upper Canada

[37] Mr. Kassam seeks the records of the LSUC in relation to Mr. Seif and Mr. Siddiqi. He has failed to connect the dots for me in term of how any disciplinary proceedings against any of these solicitors may impact on his ability to make full answer and defence. From my current vantage point, the request for LSUC documents appears to be nothing more than a classic fishing expedition. There is no evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that disciplinary action was taken against any of the three counsel. One might speculate that the records may contain information relevant to the general credibility of one or more of the solicitors. But this speculation is not sufficient to ground a determination of likely relevance. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary for me to address the additional arguments of the LSUC.

[38] There will be no production ordered at this time from the LSUC.

CONCLUSION

[39] In summary, I make the following disclosure orders:

(a) The Crown shall, at least 10 days prior to trial, provide Mr. Kassam with a list of any witnesses it intends to call and the order in which they are intended to be called;

(b) DC Mason undertook to obtain and provide to Mr. Kassam (or to the Crown for disclosure to Mr. Kassam) CPIC reports detailing the criminal records of any witness intended to be called by the Crown and that should be done at least 10 days before trial;

(c) DC Mason also undertook to obtain and provide a copy of the criminal record of Mr. Rahim Mavji and that should be done at least 10 days prior to trial;

(d) Adam Seif shall forthwith produce to Mr. Kassam and to the Crown, copies of any invoices he received from I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam together with copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices rendered to Seif Law Professional Corporation;

(e) Adam Seif shall deliver to the court, on or before November 21, 2016, for the court’s review, copies of any emails sent by Adam Seif to Mr. Kassam regarding any and all clients brought into the Seif Law firm by Mr. Kassam. .

(f) Aali Siddiqi shall forthwith deliver to Mr. Kassam and the Crown, copies of all invoices he received from I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam, together with copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices rendered to Blackstone Law Professional Corporation;

Dennis Yang shall forthwith deliver to Mr. Kassam and to the Crown, copies of all invoices he received from I.R.F. International Inc. or Mr. Kassam, together with copies of all payments made to Mr. Kassam or I.R.F. International Inc. for invoices issued to Sunmark Law Professional Corporation.

[40] I should note, for Mr. Kassam’s benefit if nothing else, that circumstances may change as the evidence develops at trial. Documents that do not appear likely relevant now may take on a different complexion as the case continues. If that occurs, Mr. Kassam may renew his application.

Released: November 9, 2016 ___________________________

Boswell J.

CORRIGENDA

1. Paragraph [28] – A reference to s. 49 of the Law Society Act has been amended to s. 49.12.

2. Paragraph [37] – A reference to Mr. Kassam seeking Law Society records in relation to Mr. Yang has been deleted.